The
government theory is one of most important and perspective directions
of the modern political thoughts. Political sphere from the complete,
not divided human society, branch of the world political from
economic, social and spiritual subsystems has occurred enough late.
Originally political phenomena were studied in frameworks dominating
paradigms in connection with the general complex of the public
phenomena.

Within
almost two things - since times of Antiquity and up to XIX century -
all knowledge of the social phenomena were uniform complete
system. But already Aristotle (384-322 BC) gave to the doctrine about
the government dominating value. All the
public life, in its opinion, kept within frameworks of a political
life and was placed in the service of the state. He underlined: «As
the science about the state uses other sciences as means
and, besides, legislatively defines, what acts should be made and
from what to abstain, its purpose includes, probably,
the purposes of other sciences, hence, this purpose also will be the
higher the
blessing for people ».

Antique
philosophers considered state occurrence as natural process of
complication of forms of a hostel of people, this concept has
received the name of the patriarchal theory of the state. Aristotle
has offered one of the first such hypothesis: in the beginning people
have united in families, then some families have formed settlement,
and at a finishing stage of this process there was a state as the
form of a hostel of the citizens using a political system.

Aristotle
underlined: in all people the nature has installed aspiration to the
state dialogue and the first who has organised this dialogue, has
rendered to mankind the greatest blessing. Within the limits of the
patriarchal theory the state is considered as the big family where
relations of the governor and its citizens are identified with
relations of the patriarch - the chief of family and members of his
family.

Crisis
of the antique policy has forced known antique philosophers to
address to a problem of strengthening of the government, a consent
and order guarantee in a society. Platon (427-347 BC) places special
emphasis on the government prime target - achievement of integrity of
a society through maintenance of the consent of all public estates.
He underlines: «We still in the beginning when based the state,
have established what to do it is necessary by all means for the sake
of whole. And so this whole also is justice...»

he
most dangerous tendency destroying the government, Platon considered
aspiration of some public groups to depart from service to general
welfare, usurping public functions for extraction of personal
benefit. In Platon's ideal state the guards knowing safety, should
not use gold and silver, could not even touch them, be decorated by
them or drink from gold and silver vessels. Platon warned: «...
Hardly own earth, houses, money as now from guards there are they
owners and land owners will be got at them; from allies of other
citizens will become hostile or lords; hating and causing to
themselves hatred, feeding malicious intentions and them being
afraid, all of them time will live in большем
fear before internal enemies, than before external, and in that case
both they and all state will direct to the prompt destruction.

But
for the government Platon considered as the greatest harm oligarchy.
It defined oligarchy as a political system which is based on a
property qualification: at the power there rich, and poor men do not
participate in management of public affairs.

The
property qualification establishment becomes the law and norm of an
oligarchic system; the more a system oligarchic, the above the
qualification.

The
such state order keeps application of the armed force. Platon with
indignation wrote that in oligarchies

The
avidity and self-interest are erected to a throne and, except riches
and rich men nothing causes delight and honoring, and the ambition is
directed only on money-making and on everything, that to it conducts.

In
the Middle Ages process of occurrence of the state began to consider
within the limits of religious outlook as establishment of institute
of the terrestrial power established by the God. This concepts has
received the name of the theological theory of the state. Modern
Catholicism considers as the official doctrine about the state Fomy
Akvinsky's (1225-1274) sights which called people for obedience of
the government connected with divine laws. It developed the concept
«two градов»
which in the spirit of the Christian doctrine has tried to dissolve
authority of the state and authority of church: «give кесарево
to the Caesar, and Божие
to the God».

Known
Russian political philosopher Bulgakov (1871 1944), estimating this
period in history, fairly underlined: split of a public life on the
secular and church has brought serious dissonance and double-entry
bookkeeping even in souls of those who quite understood all
historical relativity and internal abnormality of this bifurcation.
For the conservative "guarding" position of
non-interference to a state policy and a public life with moral
criteria the medieval church has paid, on the one hand, with
humanistic tearing away from it its most active part, with another -
own impoverishment, fading of creative spirit.

The
new understanding of the government notes an epoch of late Revival.
Italian thinker Nikola Machiavelli (1469-1527) considers for the
first time the state administration in a technological key - as
technologies of the government. The technological approach to the
government assumes, that the criterion of efficiency is put above
moral standards and rules. For Machiavelli he expert in the field of
the government is the expert offering useful technological recipes to
competitors of the government. It recognizes that the government can
change the owners, pass from hands in hands.

Recipes
of government Machiavelli addresses to "a new sovereign»,
aspiring to keep the power which is challenged constantly by new
competitors: «it is difficult to keep the power to a new
sovereign. And even to the hereditary sovereign who has attached new
possession - so the state becomes as though mixed, it is difficult to
keep over it the power first of all owing to the same natural reason
what causes revolutions in all new states.

Namely:
people, believing, that the new governor will appear better,
willingly rise against old, but soon on experience are convinced,
that were deceived, for the new governor always appears worse old ».

Tool
science of the government at Machiavelli philosophers, and the
political professionals above all putting political efficiency as
those should seize not. From its point of view, «a new
sovereign» should not follow morals precepts if it is necessary
- to recede from good and to use this ability depending on the
circumstances. For realization of the domination «a new
sovereign» can use any means: «whenever possible not to
leave from good, but at need not to avoid and harms». Murders
because of a corner, intrigues, plots, and other artful means he
recommended to Use poisonings widely in business of a gain and
government deduction. For this reason Machiavelli name became in the
government an insidiousness and immoralist synonym. When today speak
about макиавеллизме,
mean low moral qualities of people.

Machiavelli
divided sovereigns into lions and foxes. Lions are brave and
fearless, but they cannot notice danger in time. Therefore foxes more
succeed in the government: fair deceivers and hypocrites. They are in
the opinion of people compassionate, true to a word, mercy, sincere,
pious, but internally keep ability to show opposite qualities if it
is necessary.

Макиавелли
wrote: «So, from all animals let a sovereign will assimilate to
two: to a lion and a fox. The lion is afraid of traps, and a fox -
wolves, hence, it is necessary to be similar to a fox to be able to
bypass traps, and to a lion to frighten off wolves. The one who is
always similar to a lion, cannot notice a trap. From what follows,
that the reasonable governor cannot and should not remain to the true
promise if it harms to its interests and if the reasons which have
induced it to give the promise have disappeared.

Such
council would be unworthy if people fairly held a word, but people,
being дурны,
words do not hold, therefore and you should arrive with them as. And
a plausible excuse to break the promise always will be. Examples to
that set: how many peace treaties, how many agreements have not come
into force or has ruined that sovereigns broke the word, and always
in a prize there was the one who had the fox nature. However it is
necessary still to be able to cover this nature, it is necessary to
be the fair deceiver and a hypocrite, people so are ingenuous and so
are absorbed by the nearest needs, that deceiving always will find
the one who will allow itself to make a fool.

It
is necessary to be in the opinion of people compassionate, true to a
word, mercy, sincere, pious - and to be that really, but internally
it is necessary to keep readiness to show and opposite qualities if
it appears it is necessary ».

In
the end of ХIХ
century German philosopher Fredric Nitsshe (1844-1900), in many
respects following traditions макиавеллизма,
has created the concept of the super person - «the great person
of crowd», capable to carry out the government, using the most
low human passions and defects. It is no wonder that during the
Second World War fascist leaders aspired to lean against F.Nitsshe's
philosophy for the justification of a brutal state policy of the
Third Reich.